You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Its all dependent on what type of object we are talking about. 2 without quotatoin marks is automatically cast to an int type not a string.

I ran through this same thing with my son when he would ask me what 5 and 5 is. Of course when I asked him what "and" means he got all confused and I wasnt able to explain good enough for him to comprehend at that age addition vs concatentation. Not to mention the logical use of the word "and".

Its what happens when someone is learning addition at the same time they are learning to recognize numbers that contain 2 digits. What is 2 and 2, well use your fingers...1..2..3..4 So 2 and 2 is 4, yes, so 22 is the same thing as 4?

Then the future complications kick in 22 and 22 is 8(depends) or 4 and 4 is 44(which that one actually makes sense) so 4 can be 22, but 22 may not be 4. So 22 is actually the same thing as 4 when we shift contexts and then shift back.

edit: for this to make sense we must assume that "and = and" which can lead to "addition = concatenation" which in some cases could be true.

I dont study the relationship between logic and speech. I study the speech itself and the logistics within the speech. This is how I listen and understand. What I do goes beyond if X then Y, or If not A then not B. Its not mathematical logic. I dont study logic, I practice logic.

Certainly a lot can be picked up from speach beyond what can easily be placed in formal logic. But I believe that eventually, we will be able to put all of that into code (the formal logic otherwise known as software).

But I get what you are saying. It is more of an instinctual grasp of the logic of the situation. That's how I opperate too. However, I have been trained to fairly readily translate that instinctual grasp into formal terms.

Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield